Thursday, September 10, 2015

Cranky trash talks Col Sanders

REACHED FOR COMMENT, CRANKY INSISTED "I NEVER CARED FOR SANDERS' CHICKEN BUT EVEN IF I DID, I WOULDN'T VOTE OR HIM. NOR WOULD MOST PEOPLE. I MAY CHANGE MY HAIR TOO OFTEN BUT I BELIEVE HE'S HAD THE SAME HAIR DON'T SINCE 1969!"

CRANKY THEN SLAPPED HERSELF AND ADDED, "DAMN, I SHOULD HAVE SAID THAT WHILE I WAS ON ELLEN!"

Fake Ass Bernie Sanders, the Chair of the Senate Veterans Affairs
Committee when the story that the VA was keeping two sets of books on
appointments -- one (the false one) showing they were meeting the
deadlines and the hidden one (the real one) showing they weren't. How
did Bernie respond to this scandal -- which resulted in the death of
veterans waiting for care?

By insisting at a hearing as the story broke that the scandal not be
talked about because acupuncture was a much more important topic than
the VA lying and veterans dying.

He then shamelessly whored for the VA. So bad did he whore for them that he was called out on air during a CNN interview.

First off, it's English, it's basic, learn it if you're going to be a
public speaker. "The same people who spoke out forcefully and
irresponsible about . . ." That would be forcefully and irresponsibly
-- those are the words you use, even if you're an elderly idiot
suffering from old man stink.

Second, go to war with Iraq?

With?

What opponent of the Iraq War says "with" Iraq?

Check the archives, we say war "on" Iraq.

We say that often.

Only the imperialists lie and say "with."

But then, that is what Bernie is. He's no peace activist. He's not really called out war and has frequently voted for it.

What's smelling up the room is wafting off Bernie and it's not just his old man stink, it's also his hypocrisy.

People can be opposed to the deal and not be supporting war.

Equally true, the deal doesn't mean no war.

That lie's been pimped to shut down discussion.

The Yalta Conference was diplomatic and going to solve everything, right?

Then how the hell did the Cold War follow that?

The 1919 Paris Peace Conference, which resulted in the League of Nations, was going to bring about peace as well, right?

Peace didn't come, did it?

And the League of Nations is a laughable relic of the past.

The reality is that leaders of major countries bring war.

They don't bring peace.

The people may bring peace.

Usually, it's the people who struggle for peace after the war is
declared by the leaders -- who lie, all of them lie, I.F. Stone had it
right and when your wet dream Barack is out of office, suddenly, so many
leftists will remember that -- too late -- but always the fool, always
the whore for some lying politician.

The Iran deal does not promise peace.

It promises war as the history of any US treaty demonstrates going back to the various treaties with the Native Americans.

You have to be a real two-bit whore for Barack, one who can't keep your
hands off out of your pants in public, to pimp the lie that some new
contract -- with conditions for Iran (there's no conditions for the US,
idiots, read the damn thing) will result in peace.

There's penalizations for Iran, there's this for Iran, there's that for Iran.

Most likely, the contract will be used by those lying politicians to
start a war on Iran -- or "with" to use liar Bernie Sanders' term.

Barack has lied -- and some idiots bought it instead of calling him out
for fear mongering -- that if the deal/treaty does not pass, there will
be war.

He fear mongers and he lies just like Bully Boy Bush.

Jim Webb, who is running for the Democratic Party's presidential
nomination, was against the Iraq War and is against the Iran deal.

It can happen.

Many Democrats in Congress who were for the Iraq War are now supporting the deal.

Hillary Clinton, also running for the Democratic Party's 2016
presidential nomination, most closely resembles the TV character Fonzie
from Happy Days -- for those who've forgotten, Fonzie struggle to say he
was wrong just like Hillary.

Hillary voted for war on Iraq in 2002. Today, she favors the deal.

All that really demonstrates is that the spineless do whatever they're pressured to do.

There are some good things in the deal but clearly not enough.

Were the deal solid, the President of the United States would not
repeatedly insult his opponents on the deal with immature remarks so
embarrassing that the White House spokesperson had to walk them back.

Were the deal solid enough, the myth that opponents are just neocons who
supported the Iraq War would not still be being used as a 'logical'
argument for the deal.

The deal's never been fought on its own merits because the whores in
Congress and the whores in punditry can't argue for the deal.

We've not take a stand for or against the deal.

My job is not to whore for the White House -- regardless of what idiot
being elevated to the rank of modern day Jesus temporarily occupies the
White House.

Any statement by a member of Congress opposing the deal that's been
mailed to the public e-mail account has been posted at this site.

Some have been thoughtful and shown real exploration.

None of the response has been the same.

David Brock is the cancer on the left.

In the 90s, as he lied and bullied, we knew (on the left) his actions were wrong.

But we elevated the little whore because he told us the right was mean
(after he could no longer advance further on the right because he was a
closeted gay man whose hags -- Ann Coulter, etc -- would only tolerate
so much from him).

And then we decided the David Brock playbook was the way to go.

And we've lost whatever ethics we had in the process.

In February 2003, I began speaking out against the Iraq War publicly (it would start in March).

Any of us who did can tell you the problem was that we were shut out of
the debate, that points we made were ignored, that the 'argument' for
the illegal war was shut-up-and-go-along-with-what-we-say, etc.

The Iraq War deserved debate and exploration before it started.

That didn't take place.

War Hawks (chiefly on the right but also on the center-left) and corporations saw to it that the discussion would be shut down.

Today, the Iran deal proponents act in the same manner and think that's a good thing.

Apparently, in a democracy, we don't need debate when you want your side to win.